Posted on 07/26/2012 5:42:58 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
In Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference, the Cold Case Posse presented further evidence that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth presented to the public was forged.
One of the points they raised was the presence of handwritten codes next to a number of the informational boxes on the COLB, and suggested that the codes did not match the substance of the information typed into the boxes in certain cases, providing one more indication of digital tampering.
The link for this thread is a Vital Statistics Instruction Manual issued by HEW revised August 14, 1961 which refers to some of the codes used for birth certificates at that time (which was in a link found by freeper Natufian). (Obama was born in early August according to his COLB, so we don't know if this manual or an earlier version was actually used, even if we believe the part of the document on which the codes appear was actually derived from an original 1961 document.)
Discussion so far has focused on the coding for race of the father, indicated as "9" on the COLB.
However, attention should also be focused on one of the other coded items: namely, whether the original COLB listed a hospital birth or a home birth.
One theory offered to explain why Obama presented a digitally-altered COLB is that Grandma Toot originally submitted a half-handwritten, half-typed document (as once described by Linda Fukino to reporter Michael Isikoff). This document was a rather dodgy piece of paper that would raise more questions than it answered if examined closely.
According to this theory, Grandma Toot listed Stanley Ann as the mother and Barack Obama as the father and the address on Kalanianaole Highway where grandparents Stanley and Toot were then living as the address both of the mother and where the baby was born.
Where Stanley Ann really was at the time of birth is a matter of speculation, since she was first seen with the baby in Seattle and the daughter of the family with whom grandparents Stanley and Toot were living does not remember any new-born infant being brought to the house.
This document submitted by Grandma Toot was automatically included in the information delivered by the vital statistics department to the newspapers for recent births, and therefore would explain the appearance of the two newspaper announcements.
Later, however, when it was important for Obama to have a birth certificate that others might look at, it was considered necessary to change this into a normal-looking birth certificate that someone born in a hospital would have.
The “home birth” story was too thin, especially since if anyone interviewed the family with whom the grandparents were living and they said no baby was born in their home, the whole story would collapse. On the other hand, in the case of a maternity hospital, lots of babies were being born there and it would be no problem if no one specifically remembered this particular baby and privacy laws would prevent an examination of the records of the hospital.
If true, then THE INFORMATION OF MOST INTEREST ON THE COLB WOULD BE PLACE OF BIRTH ON THE ORIGINAL UNALTERED DOCUMENT -- WAS IT A HOME BIRTH OR A HOSPITAL BIRTH?
Looking at the Instruction Manual, it indicates on page 14 that a hosptital birth or with a physician in attendance should be coded “1.”
In the case of a home birth, if a midwife attended it should be coded “3.”
If it was a birth at home, and neither a midwife nor a physician was present, then it should be coded “4.”
Turning now to Obama’s purported birth certificate, we see a handwritten code number in the margin immediately to the left of the box in which “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” is typed.
This handwritten number is cut off and only the right side of the number appears.
However it is clearly NOT a “1” and clearly NOT a “3”.
It looks like the right side of the number “4”.
This would mean the original document claimed a home birth at which neither a physician nor a midwife was present.
This would be one additional point of evidence, in addition to the other evidence presented by Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, that Obama presented a digitally-tampered birth certificate.
Nordyke has a 6 by the hospital.
There is a better analysis of it here:
There you are speculating again making an assumption as to how the manuals work.
In point of fact, whatever the changes to the revised manual were, it is unlikely that they changed the numbers used in the coding system in mid-year.
If they did, the full-year data would be unreliable. The revisions most likely related to clarifying various things without changing the actual number system in mid-year.
Look at the 6’s on Gretchen Nordyke. One of them looks like what could have been on Obama’s BC. There are two sixes. They don’t look the same.
...or is it just a new printing.
A reprinting is not a revision and would be noted accordingly as only a reprinting.
It could have vast changes that are in no way comparable to the new revised manual.
Any attempt to compare one with the other is an act of futility and to assume that they're the same is to act on evidence not on hand.
The Nordyke long six has a curve to it. Obama’s has more like a straight line used with a 5.
We are not playing a "game."
And yes, that is correct what you say, there would be time required for printing and mailing the manual out to the states, and we don't know exactly when Hawaii would have received the revised instruction manual.
Just more speculation on your part.
I guess I don’t understand the importance of this. There is supposedly an announcement in a local Hawaiin newspaper at the time of birth, just like there always is. And it’s the state of Hawaii, not the infant, who certifies a birth. The infant doesn’t remember, of course. I checked into getting a certified copy of my birth certificate (my old original microfiche used to suffice, but no more), and my state will only issue those “short form” certificates if you were born before a certain year. So I can only get a short printed form certifying my birth. That’s disturbing, but nothing I can do about it. I think the original microfiche should suffice. It’d be hard as heck to forge that. And anyone can see it’s almost falling apart from age.
It appears the Nordykes have the same markings as on Obama’s. Is that a 6 or a 4 or a 1 with a penciled dot on the Nordykes next to box 6c? It’s blurry when I magnify it. The manual Ladyforest has just posted today says a code 1 should be next to box 6c. This is the reason the Hawaiian codings need to be checked out.
Of course it is speculation.
I am simply pointing out that it is REASONABLE speculation to suppose that they would be unlikely to change the actual number system used in mid-year, because that would SCREW UP the full-year numbers.
Why else would you fight so hard for "this manual was the one that was used" when it's obvious that it wasn't in effect at the time?
Where's it say that?
It says:
TERRITORY OF HAWAIIOffice of the Secretary
Certification of Hawaiian Birth
This is to certify that Sun Yat Sen
now residing at Kula, Haui, T. H., whose
signature is attached, has made application No. 25 for a
Certification of Birth.And that it appears from his affidavit and the
evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the
Hawaiian Islands on the 24th day of November,
A. D. 1870, and that the photograph attached is a good
likeness of him at this time.In testimony whereof, the Secretary
of the Territory has herunto subscribed
his name and caused the
seal of the Territory of Hawaii
to be affixed.(Signed) A. L. Atkinson
Done in Honolulu this 14th
day of March
A. D. 1904.(Photograph)
(Seal)
Signature: Sun Yut Sen
Sun Yat-sen was actually born in Guangdong Province, China.
Of the 3 ways of numbering BC’s that have been presented (Okubo’s, Verna Lee’s, and the alphabetizing theory of Dr Con and John Woodman), none of them work for Obama to have that BC#. And there are several other BC#’s that also cannot work in ANY of those scenarios.
So far there are 3 BC#’s that I KNOW have been altered by the HDOH and another that either comes from the HDOH or else Obama’s people have an embosser for a darn-good fake registrar’s seal. All this can be known because the BC#’s don’t work with ANY of the numbering methods.
What that tells us is that the HDOH reassigned somebody’s BC# of 10641 to Obama. The only reason I can think of for that to be necessary is if he didn’t have a 1961 BC# that would work.
The HDOH has also said that the “date accepted by local registrar” on their record is Aug 8, 1961. If that’s accurate and not fabricated by the HDOH, then somebody reported the birth on Aug 8, 1961. The only reason for a birth reported on Aug 8, 1961 to not have a 1961 BC# is if the BC was not COMPLETED on time.
Another thing I can tell you is that even if the newspaper birth announcements did come from the HDOH, they did not come after the BC’s had been checked for completeness and accepted/numbered by the state registrar. There are Monday births that were announced in the Saturday paper 5 days later - before the 7-day reporting period for the local registrars was even over (whether it was a Friday to Friday timeframe, a Sunday-to-Sunday week, or a Monday-to-Monday week). And we’re talking that the hospital had to get the paperwork done (including signatures of both the parent and the doctor), get it to at least the local registrar, have the local registrar print out a list for the newspapers, and have the newspaper get it all typeset on the linotype for printing of the Saturday morning paper.
I don’t believe that Obama’s announcement was ever in those papers in 1961. There’s too much funny business with the microfilms. But even if it was, and even if the list came from the HDOH (which I have strong reservations about also), it could not have been a list of births that were accepted and numbered. It was just a list of birth CLAIMS that had been submitted - whether complete enough to be later given a number, or not.
There is way, way more to be said but it’s going to take some time to get it all together in presentable form, with documentation and understandable explanation. There is just so much. The ramifications of what was presented at the press conference are larger than most everyone has grasped, but it has to be unpacked before people will see just how devastating it all really is - especially in conjunction with Onaka’s indirect confirmation to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the record they have for Obama is not legally valid.
People can’t absorb this all at once. There is so much remedial catching-up to do before the general public will be able to make any sense out of all this.
Nowhere am I "fighting hard" for this manual if you actually read my comments.
I DON'T KNOW for certain exactly what date the handwritten coding was done, and I don't know for certain WHICH manual was used, and I don't know for certain WHAT the revisions were to the manual. I don't even know for sure that the piece of document the digital assembler used which had the handwritten marks was even from the year 1961 and not from, say, 1970.
By the same token, your claim that "it is obvious" the revised manual was NOT used for the coding cannot be correct, because just as it true that I don't know those things, neither DO YOU.
If it was a different BC we’d see the Obama BC go down into the binding and the left-side BC also go down into the binding. We don’t see that. Whatever is written in that margin is from the same page. With the page already starting to go down for the binding, whatever question was asked in the margin (as evidenced by the question mark) had to be short.
Concur with most that you say. Only point I’d add if you look at the announcement page the “stripper” lines disappear/are not consistant around BOs announcement....That doesn’t happen in reality. My reaction to that initially was they were fake.
Right. And those lines which appeared on the full-page Advertiser image at whatreallyhappened.com actually came from somebody at the Advertiser office - but by the time the Advertiser showed that image for Will Hoover’s article a couple days after the 2008 election, they had heard the suspicions aroused by those lines and gotten rid of them.
Shows that the Advertiser office was manipulating the image to make it appear more legitimate - since microfilms don’t suddenly lose their scratches like that. And the Advertiser also deliberately blurred the rest of the page so people couldn’t find other problems with the image.
There are a ton of other reasons for me to believe that the images we’ve seen are manipulations/forgeries and that Obama’s birth never was announced in the August 1961 papers. Most of it is more detailed than most people have the patience to go through, which is probably why nobody on our side is willing to come right out and say that the announcements were forged.
Think I pinged you to the earlier comments about the delayed registered BC. One of the methods was paper signed by parents...with an s. Since change of custody or termination of parental rights could have been done with a mailed affidavit from Kenya, it would have been unnecessary for SR to travel half way around the world....Appears his required signature for a delayed BC would....Isn’t that one of your conclusions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.